[MacTel]

Quote:

---

In my opinion, the iPod Classic is redundant and iPod Touch is something that gives you the horsepower but not the fuel. I think Apple should have introduced the iPod Touch with hard drive capacity akin to the iPod classic and then dropped the iPod classic all together. It just makes no sense to position the classic between the current Nano and the iPod touch.

---

I would suspect the Classic version will be going away shortly after Apple makes games available on the Touch and after the Touch climbs to at least 32Gb of flash memory. 64Gb would be nice too. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[CruftForce7]

Quote:

---

I looked at one in an Apple Store and immediately had a compulsion to kill kittens and fling puppies by their tails.

---

My God, you too? I smell a class-action lawsuit on the wind! Quick, somebody call a fly by night lawyer!

[VidPro]

Quote:

---

Would it be better with a larger screen such as those on the Zune, iPod touch or iPhone? Undoubtedly... but that doesn't prevent it from being very watchable on the iPod video/classic.

---

Certainly better on the iPod touch or iPhone, but the Zune, while sporting a somewhat larger screen, spreads the same number of pixels around that larger screen with a lower pixel density. So while the image is larger, you do not see any more detail, and in fact, the image will give the impression it is softer, and if there are distortions or other artifacts, they will will be more obvious, and would certainly annoy the heck out of me.

[JakeB]

Just visited my sister last week - she and her husband had a 50 inch widescreen TV. I'd brought over a DVD assembled with iDVD featuring a (mercifully short) movie and slideshow from my summer vacation.
The image on the screen was HUGE. The music I'd selected BOOMED through the room.
Even if I stapled an iPod nano to my eyeball I wouldn't get the same effect; this 'iPod nano screen is the same relative size as a big-screen TV' argument is just plain wrong. It's hilarious that Apple has managed to fool so many people into squinting at a 2 1/2 inch screen; okay, the odd sit com while waiting for the bus. But trying to experience the grandeur of Lawrence of Arabia? Please!
Won't even start on the lower-than-DVD quality of the movies Apple sells.
We'll look back on these tiny screens with the same bemusement as we do with the hula hoop: how could anyone think this was fun?
Jake

[Macdev8]

Why the suprise? Wouldn't you expect that Apple would have spent quite a bit on R&D before committing to manufacturing the Nano? Certainly, one would expect this new iPod to be at least, watchable.
Wouldn't a more positive headline, e.g., "The surprisingly highly watchable" or even "The surprisingly very watchable." have been more appropriate.
However the way the headline reads now, it seems that you expected the new Nano to be unwatchable.

[moose_n_squirrel]

Quote:

---

I have a 53 inch screen and watch DVD's nicely, thank you very much. This nonsense about having to have HD on a 42 inch screen is crap. Line doubler? Maybe 20 years ago when they started making big screen TV's.

---

Yes, but remember, I was replying to a question about whether it's nirvana to sit right directly in front of a 42" TV. When you're that close, the content matters a lot. A DVD will certainly look fine on a 53" at the viewing distance that size TV is designed for

Quote:

---

Even if I stapled an iPod nano to my eyeball I wouldn't get the same effect; this 'iPod nano screen is the same relative size as a big-screen TV' argument is just plain wrong.

---

A. No one made the argument that a nano was as good as a big-screen TV. I said it was like watching a 19" 4:3 TV.
B. A big-screen TV has no advantage in the context of the portable devices which are being discussed. I mean, I've seen big-screen TVs mounted in the backs of SUVs, but I don't think that's the kind of "portable" video we're talking about.

[respin4]

Quote:

---

... the nano in front of your face, a 2" diagonal nano screen is approx. the same size to your eye as a 19" diagonal TV screen 6 feet away. That may be why it doesn't really look so bad.

---

The biggest difference is that whenever you look at the moon or watch TV, you're actually "relaxing" your eyes to focus rays from far away, while to watch a small object closer to your face, you have to use the muscles in your eyes to change the shape of your lens and your focus. This is extra physical stress that you don't get from watching TV (or looking at the moon). It might cause discomfort if done for prolonged times. There is also the problem of moving your eyes to follow the action or compensate for the motion of the bus or your hand.
Size does matter, at least in this case. For video, I say go with the iPod touch.

[Moof_in_Charge]

Eh? I am not sure I understand, Nano couldn't dig a hole either, perhaps you're asking too much? /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
The thing about the Nano is, it did one thing well, and that was play music and gave you access to selecting music and and had a no-compromise form factor. It was the perfect form in every way for what it did, making it wider takes away from it. I held one in my hands and I can tell you with authority that in my point of view, the experience didn't come anywhere close to the previous 2 incarnations of Nano.
Some of the options you stated could have been merged with the Previous Nanos under the pretense of a new model. So answering those needs would have been a giant leap for the device. My point is the ability to play video does not offset the extra width and size of the Nano.
Nano was the perfect bridge from the Shuttle in to a full blown iPod. that bridge is no longer.
What's next a Shuffle that can play video?
Maybe I'm crazy
I don't know you so you could very well be crazy /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif Are you telling me with any sort of a straight face that holding and maneuvering the click wheel with the previous generation is not more of an experience than what you get with the new one?
that was one of the most-requested features
I am not sure where this comes from, if its from Apple, I would highly doubt the validity of the request. Apple must hate the fact that it automatically excludes folks who buy a Nano from purchasing video material from its website, unlike the shuffle, most folks who buy a Nano happen to own only the Nano. I am also not sure how someone with 1-4 GB of total memory would want to demand watching video on a device?
As far as the iPod Touch's storage goes, I do realize solid state memory is expensive, I just don't know why they didn't send it out the door with hard drives, of course battery life, cost and other technical aspects may have prevented them to do so but I think in some regards they have now saturated their own line of products and that ultimately ends up hurting your own bottom line. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[Moof_in_Charge]

I would suspect the Classic version will be going away shortly after Apple makes games available on the Touch and after the Touch climbs to at least 32Gb of flash memory. 64Gb would be nice too
I think you're right, I think they're taunting time with the classic waiting for memory prices to fall more. At 64 GB you can say goodbye to the Classic.
I really can't see the current model line continue, it's like they're all cannibalizing each other in some capacity...
I would have waited to introduce the touch until next year but I guess Apple wants to have the dominant gadget this Christmas season badly.

[Gatesbasher]

[indent]Quote:

---

Certainly better on the iPod touch or iPhone, but the Zune, while sporting a somewhat larger screen, spreads the same number of pixels around that larger screen with a lower pixel density. So while the image is larger, you do not see any more detail, and in fact, the image will give the impression it is softer, and if there are distortions or other artifacts, they will will be more obvious, and would certainly annoy the heck out of me.

---

[/indent]
Amen! Rule of Thumb: If you can see the lines/pixels in a picture, the angular size (whether from size or distance) is already bigger than it should be. Making it bigger yet is only going to make it worse. In the case of a big-screen HDTV showing a VHS tape (yes, I've experienced this,) much worse.

[MacAngus]

I am greatly impressed with the 'watchability' of the new nano I purchased yesterday, but the screen has 8 stuck pixels. Problem is, they are so tiny that the person I took it back to at the Apple Store couldn't see the stuck pixels at issue, and they are out of stock as well.
Anyone else with a similar screen issue?

[VidPro]

[indent]Quote:

---

[indent]Quote:

---

... the nano in front of your face, a 2" diagonal nano screen is approx. the same size to your eye as a 19" diagonal TV screen 6 feet away. That may be why it doesn't really look so bad.

---

[/indent]
The biggest difference is that whenever you look at the moon or watch TV, you're actually "relaxing" your eyes to focus rays from far away, while to watch a small object closer to your face, you have to use the muscles in your eyes to change the shape of your lens and your focus. This is extra physical stress that you don't get from watching TV (or looking at the moon). It might cause discomfort if done for prolonged times.

---

[/indent]
You are making assumptions based on your own eyes, not on reality. Many of us are actually near-sighted, and even when our eyes are relaxed, we can only focus on a closer object than you can, and try as we might, our eyes will not, on their own, focus any further away than that.
If you are indeed far-sighted, then it would make sense for you to get special glasses to focus at nearer objects such as books, newspapers, as well as your computer screen that you may be looking at for any length of time, and the same glasses would then make looking at the iPod, any flavor, much easier on your eyes as with the proper glasses, your eyes would be perfectly relaxed while focusing much closer than it could unaided.
Having said that, the iPod lines and TVs are built for different purposes. I don't believe for a moment that anyone would prefer to watch a TV show or movie on an iPod's built-in screen in their living room. Unless others are already watching something else on the TV, they'd only use it either with a cable to the TV, or when they are not in their living room or another room with access to a TV, such as when commuting, on a beach, as mentioned above waiting for a shopping spouse, in a doctor's or dentist's waiting room, and the list can go on. In my previous dentist's waiting room, there actually was a TV set, but it was continually playing cartoons for the kids. Even switched to broadcast TV, it wouldn't have interested me, whereas bringing my own personally selected videos or movies would be more than satisfactory.
Everyone will have a unique definition of how big a unit has to be before they will not carry it around, with the different iPods, Apple is creating products in various sizes to match each preference.
[indent]Quote:

---

There is also the problem of moving your eyes to follow the action or compensate for the motion of the bus or your hand.

---

[/indent]
That is the price to pay for viewing in a moving vehicle, but many do prefer to pay that price.
[indent]Quote:

---

Size does matter, at least in this case. For video, I say go with the iPod touch.

---

[/indent]
I'd love to get the iPod touch, but a combination of economics, storage, features and portability will still steer many to the classic or Nano iPods.

[Gatesbasher]

[indent]Quote:

---

You are making assumptions based on your own eyes, not on reality. Many of us are actually near-sighted, and even when our eyes are relaxed, we can only focus on a closer object than you can, and try as we might, our eyes will not, on their own, focus any further away than that.

---

[/indent]
I'm about 4 powers farsighted, and my eyes quit accommodating years ago. So I have to let my bifocal sections (another 2.5 powers, I think) do the work. The downside of this is, everything is in such clear focus that the coarseness of a 240 x 320 screen is glaringly obvious; and if I hold it far enough away to counter that, I can't focus on it. This is just me; as you point out, we all have our little peculiarities that make something suitable for some and not for others.

[Dan Frakes]

[indent]Quote:

---

and had a no-compromise form factor. It was the perfect form in every way for what it did, making it wider takes away from it. I held one in my hands and I can tell you with authority that in my point of view, the experience didn't come anywhere close to the previous 2 incarnations of Nano.

---

[/indent]
Well, I should hope that you have authority with your own point of view
On a serious note, I think the difference might simply be that I'm a "grab on" type, who grasps the iPod with my entire hand, palm and fingers. When I hold the previous model, the sharp top and bottom edges dig into my palm and fingers, and its narrow width and rounded, smooth sides make it easy to accidentally flip around while I'm trying to use the controls. So for me, the new wider shape is better. (Keep in mind that we're not talking deal-breakers here; the previous nano was my favorite iPod and it was good enough that I easily overlooked the comfort issue; it's just that now there's a better alternative for me.)
If, on the other hand (so to speak), you're the "finger cradle" type who holds the iPod curled in your fingers, I can see how the old one's narrow width fits better.

That said, I still think you're not giving the new nano nearly enough credit for how much better it is in pretty much every way than the previous one -- save, in your view, the shape, and, in my view, the shiny back.